Not bad, from 90K down to 54K, but things seem to be slowly on the up.

I'm doing MB only, people doing AP as well won't take as big a hit.
It's MB that's had it's payout slashed.

I only did AP's on my 2500K CPU, when they came along and you could grab 1, but now it seems to be all it does these days, with the odd MB V6 or V7 thrown in now and again to break the monotony (which is why it's now my higher RAC rig again).

I have also noticed the same "bottoming" out. My RAC dropped from ~102K to about ~60K and for the last few days I have seen a slight upturn of RAC on most of my rigs. I'm now "up" to about 69K. I'm going to have to add a couple more computers to the farm :)

My RAC is down from over 5100 to about 3200.
I expect it to drop more as remaining v6 work units are gone and all V7 take over.
I have even added a few more computers.Mike Bader
BOINC V7.9.3
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/team_join_form.php?id=5 - Join Our International Team [img]http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats.php?

My RAC dropped from 13300 (end of May 2013) to about 7100 (15th June 2013) at more or less constant speed.
Then it started increasing again but only at half the speed it was decreasing.
Will watch it carefully!

I'm not exactly sure. I figure that my CPU MB only machines are just going for a visit to the Titanic.
However the dots on the graphs are getting closer. So instead of dropping 7-8% a day it is now only about 2-3%.SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours Join the BP6/VP6 User Group today!

Note that there are very few APs being given out now, too, which doesn't help RAC at all.

It's not all AP. The computer I mentioned above is MB only, and the credits per WU are definitely increasing. According to FreeDC the credit per day rating of this box has risen by 5k since last week.

Even V7 VHARS, which take twice as long to run as a V6 are now paying close to twice the credit. There are still some anomalies but things are definitely on the improve.

T.A.

That may be the case but at my end I have not seen any increase in credits granted. When I looked yesterday, credit being granted for a v7 WU was still dismally lower than for a v6 WUs. It is true that if you add AP into your processing mix, then RAC will increase which is why I have stopped posting my daily totals as I have now added AP into my mix and this will cloud the actual impact of v7 credits.

All up,
<colourful language>
they could not have stuffed it up more, even if they had tried too.
</colourful language>

The lack of acknowledgement and the silence around the impact (from its creators and the project owner) indicates to me that they have no idea. The solution, I believe, that will be adopted will be constant ongoing tinkering until they think it is about right. So expect intermittent, small incremental gains over time to daily totals, etc.

I also doubt that any solution will be retro fitted to v7 WUs processed thus far, even tough in theory it should be.

The fall in credit was most definitely not deliberate. I wouldn't even know how to cause such a thing using the BOINC credit new. I had assumed it was a case of "fast machines report results first" which usually drives the granted credit to low values when a new version is released, but there should have been ample time for that to fix itself.

Of course the corollary is that I haven't figured out how to fix it yet.

My RAC has gone down by less than 10%. Is this worse for people using anonymous platform?

First, "CreditNew" has been implemented at SETI@home for a year now, so this reduction in credit is not due to implementing "CreditNew" since it was implemented ages ago.

Second, how credits are normalized hasn't changed between v6 and v7 under CreditNew. Since our results are mostly stock Windows and CUDA under Windows, those results set the normalization.

Based upon the archives, the S@H 6 windows_intel app was generating an average of 0.00556 credits per elapsed second. The current S@H 7 windows_intel app is generating 0.00514 credits per elapsed second, or about 7% less. Astropulse 6 is currently generating 0.00491 credits per elapsed second or about 12% less than S@H v6. I'm hoping the Astropulse issue is resolving itself. (It appears to be slowly coming back to normal.)

There aren't a whole lot of knobs I can turn to get that 7% back. I've bumped the estimated GPU efficiency by 20% in hopes that that would help, but thus far I haven't seen a change. I'm going to try increasing the workunit work estimates slowly, but I think that change will get normalized out.

Yes, there are projects that offer more credit. A number of projects have chosen to detach their credits from any measure of actual processing, usually by pretending they are getting 100% efficiency out of GPUs. I fought that battle for years, and lost. Those projects have entirely devalued the BOINC credit system.

I note that there are 3 things in the first sentence of which you focus your first comment on only one of these. I would have to say that an abstract comment basically saying "oops" on 7 Jun does not constitute acknowledgement of the problem. I do note that there is nothing around "I apologise for...", "I am sorry for..." in the comment to the contributor base, nor has there been any further real communication around the issue, what they are doing and how it is progressing (a note on 16 Jun, 9 days after the first comment, does not constitute communication). I also note the comment "I haven't figured out how to fix it yet" which agrees with the last thought of the first sentence, that is, "that they have no idea".

I also draw your attention to his comment, "My RAC has gone down by less than 10%. Is this worse for people using anonymous platform?". In case you haven’t noticed, I have been posting my daily totals in this thread. I posted my daily totals from 16 May to 31 May when I was running on v6. The daily average over the period was 221,878. On 1 Jun, I migrated all my boxes to v7 and aborted all waiting v6 work. From 1 Jun to 22 Jun I recorded the daily totals (you can see them in a thread above). The average was 102,376. This is 46.1% of my previous running average when only doing v6. Many others have had similar experiences with falling daily totals with v7.

In short, the credit system is broken for v7 MB WUs. This is my view and I appreciate and accept that you and/or others may not agree fully or otherwise.

I do note that you talk about RAC not falling that much. RAC is a lagging indicator. If you want to see the actual impact to yourself you should go to either BOINC Stats or Free-DC and chart your credits over time.

The comments enclosed within the second side barred text are not fully correct. If they were, then the numbers that I was posting in this thread would not be as low as they are. There is an anomaly between what he is looking at and what people are experiencing. The investigation of the anomaly should lead them to the answer.

In relation to the last comment around other projects offering more credit, it has no impact on me as I do not do work for other projects. I am like others who only crunch Seti.

To Dr Eric Korpela

I offer the following (with all emotion aside):

Your comment: “Second, how credits are normalized hasn't changed between v6 and v7 under CreditNew. Since our results are mostly stock Windows and CUDA under Windows, those results set the normalization.”

Firstly I would ask you to look at the daily totals posted by me in this thread. Given that all machines moved to v7 on 1 June, you can see that daily totals reduced to around 46% of previous daily totals under v7 compared to v6 (54% reduction).

The machines in question all ran optimised apps for Multi-beam only over the period 1 June to 22 June.

Your comment: “Based upon the archives, the S@H 6 windowsintel app was generating an average of 0.00556 credits per elapsed second. The current S@H 7 windowsintel app is generating 0.00514 credits per elapsed second, or about 7% less. Astropulse 6 is currently generating 0.00491 credits per elapsed second or about 12% less than S@H v6. I'm hoping the Astropulse issue is resolving itself. (It appears to be slowly coming back to normal.)”

It would appear that the numbers are based on averages from the database. Can I suggest that rather than looking at database averages which can have a tendency to mask issues, that investigation look at machines and work units that have run on optimised and non-optimised applications. I would also offer the following observation to you. I have ceased processing v7 MB work units on 2 of the machines (the third machine will cease processing v7 MB in a day or two). Since doing this, daily totals have risen sharply and significantly on both of these computers. These machines are currently only working on AP across CPU and GPU.

Please feel free to look at the machines that I have, and the credits granted against work units if this helps.

If you wish to contact me to discuss any of this I would more than welcome your approach to help resolve the anomaly as it can only benefit all.